Shared Values

According to Kim Howells the UK and Saudi Arabia can unite around "shared values". What would they be then? Wahabism? Misogyny? Torture? It's particularly amusing coming from Howells because last summer he appeared on David Aaronovitch's programme about the general indecency of the left complaining about banners which proclaimed "We are Hezbollah" which he, rather bizarrely, characterised as "the military wing of the Iranian government" which doubtless pissed off the Iranian army no end. I hold no particular brief for Hezbollah but if one is going to object on principled grounds to reactionary theocratic politics, one ought not to suck up shamelessly to the Saudis.

Howells remarked: "Some commentators will focus on our differences and ask how we can talk of shared values." No shit, Sherlock.

Hysteria

Polly Toynbee on Rowan Williams:

Joining the Catholics and evangelicals, that pathetic weather-vane windbag, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has now dithered his way into the debate. Wobbly Williams is hand-wringing over "too many" abortions and loss of "moral focus" and "weakening of the feeling that abortion is the last resort". His Observer article last Sunday calling for a review of the 24-week limit was an archetypal self-parody, wandering around the moral maze and getting lost. Too many! Either abortion is murder - which some think - or it isn't, which 83% think in a new NOP poll. So are a few murders OK with the archbishop, and if so, how many? His contribution was yet another intellectual contortion to mollify his church's woman-hating, gay-bashing, Daily Mail wing instead of standing up for whatever it is he thinks.

Which is, of course, nonsense. It is entirely possible to believe that something is not morally equivalent to murder and is still morally wrong. It is also possible to believe that something is morally licit but ought to be the option of last resort, hence the slogan "safe, legal and rare". So presumably either Williams thinks that abortion is morally wrong, but not equivalent to murder (which, incidentally, puts him in the same camp as Augustine and Aquinas) or something that in some circumstances is allowable but ought not to be common. Neither of which strike me as being dishonourable or obviously absurd positions.

What is it about abortion that brings this sort of thing out in people? I remember asking a friend of mine what he thought about the issue and he replied that he was against abortion but thought that pro-lifers were a bunch of loonies so he tried to stay off the issue. On some issues if one is unsure one can have a look at who lines up how and judge accordingly. On abortion you either have the screaming angry people who think you want to murder babies or the screaming angry people who think you hate women. As I find screaming angry people disconcerting I tend to flip-flop a lot. At the moment Planet Zinfandel favours a review of the time limits, an end to the two signature rule, better sex education and better access to contraception. This may change if I think of something else or I come across an argument I find convincing and where I feel that I'm not being hectored.

Iraqi Employees

More from Dan Hardie:

Our Government is still proposing to abandon people to the death squads for having worked for the troops it sent, in our name, to Iraq.

The ‘twelve month’ stipulation is utterly unacceptable. In the Miliband statement, the Government committed itself to doing nothing to shelter people at risk from death squads for having worked for British soldiers or diplomats, unless they can prove that they have worked for the British for a continuous period of twelve months.

There are a lot of local employees who fled their jobs before 12 months precisely because they had been targeted, or who did a 6-month tour for one British battalion and were then told to go and work for the Americans, or who did 12 months or more with interruptions, or who the Army didn’t give proper documentation too. Mark Brockway (former Sergeant-Major, TA Royal Engineers) said so, several times, at the meeting on October 9th; so did Andrew Alderson (Major, Yeomanry); so do the employees, and serving soldiers, who are in touch with them, or with me, by email.

This is indescribably shabby. It has to be changed.

The first letters to MPs worked. Telephoning the offices of MPs, I was frequently told ‘They’ve written to the Home Office about it- they got all these letters from constituents.’ So without the letters that you wrote, we wouldn’t have had Brown’s partial climbdown, which may at least save the lives of those hundreds of Iraqis who can prove that they worked for twelve months for us. Write another letter- or write your first- and we can save some more lives.

As before, bullet points for a letter are below. So is a form letter, but don’t send it unchanged: adapt it a lot. It’s just there to help people over writer’s block. Again, be courteous when writing to your MP and put your full address including the postcode, to indicate that you are a constituent. If you don’t know who your MP is, you can find out here. You should address letters to: (MP’s Name), The House of Commons, Westminster, London. SW1A 0AA. When you get a reply, let me know (in comments, or to danhardie.blog@gmail.com ) so that we can see which MPs we can work with, and which need persuading.

Bullet points:

• David Miliband’s Statement on ‘Iraq: Locally Recruited Civilians’ of 9th October stated that Britain will help to resettle- in the wider Middle East, or in the United Kingdom- Iraqis who can prove that they have worked for this country’s soldiers or diplomats for a continuous period of twelve months.
• Hundreds of Iraqis have been targeted for assassination for having worked for this country. Some have worked for a period of twelve months exclusively for the British and can prove this. Some have not but have been pinpointed for murder anyway. We have a responsibility to save these people from being murdered for the ‘crime’ of working for the British.
• There are a lot of local employees who fled their jobs before 12 months precisely because they had been targeted, or who did a 6-month tour for one British battalion and were then told to go and work for the Americans, or who did 12 months or more with interruptions, or who the Army didn’t give proper documentation too.
• Iraqi staff members must be given shelter not because of their provable length of service but according to whether they have been identified for murder by local death squads. This can be investigated on the spot by Army officers and referred rapidly to London: the process needs to start now.
• Mr Miliband’s statement did not mention the families of Iraqi employees. As Iraqi militias also murder the families of their ‘enemies’, we must resettle our employees’ families as well. Mark Brockway, an ex-soldier who hired many Iraqis, estimates that we are talking about a maximum of 700 Iraqis to resettle: this country admits 190,000 immigrants net every year.
• Iraqis have already been targeted for murder for having worked for this country. We will be shamed if we allow more to be killed for the same reason. Our soldiers, who are angry at this betrayal, and our diplomats, will be placed at risk if they gain a reputation for abandoning their local helpers.

Form letter:

(MP’s Name)

The House Of Commons

Westminster

London. SW1A 0AA.

Your full name and address.

Dear (MP’s Name)

As you will have read in the Times, Iraqis who have worked for British soldiers or diplomats are being targeted for murder by local militia. An unknown number have already been killed and more have been forced into hiding.

On October 9th, David Miliband’s statement on ‘Locally Recruited Civilians’ in Iraq said that Britain would offer assistance with resettlement for Iraqis who had worked with British forces, but only if they could prove that they had worked for us for 12 months or more. This is effectively leaving hundreds of Iraqis, who have risked their lives for this country’s forces, to the mercy of the death squads.

Mark Brockway, a former soldier who employed many Iraqis, told Channel Four News on 9th October that local staff often worked for six months for British units, during which time they were frequently identified as ‘enemies’ by the local militias. I believe that the Government has a direct responsibility for the safety of these people.

I feel that it is morally unacceptable that this country is following such a policy. I also believe it will endanger our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can I please ask you to write to the Foreign Office, and also to the Home Office which has charge of asylum policy, to ask why the Government is prepared to ignore the plight of hundreds of people who were placed at risk serving this country’s soldiers.

Yours sincerely

Mock Tudor

Once upon a time there was a man called Robert Graves who wrote, among other things, I, Claudius and Claudius the God. One day a nice man from the BBC bought up the serialisation rights and 'lo and behold' a new genre of television was born. The historical adaptation combining literary flair and high class smut. It is, a difficult genre to manage. I, Claudius was a first rate historical novel and Jack Pullman's adaptation does justice to Graves' creation, neither following him slavishly nor departing so far from his version that it became unrecognisable. The Borgias, a flagrant attempt to do much the same, managed to provoke critical ignominy and a protest from the Holy See. My spell checker wants to change 'Borgias' to 'orgiastic' and I suspect that it was this aspect of Pope Alexander's career that the Holy Father would have preferred not to have been reproduced in sitting rooms the length and breadth of the country. The latest attempt is The Tudors, whose first episode aired on Friday. All the staples are there. Lots of bonking - check. Glossy costumes - check. Court intrigue (much cheaper than, say, warfare) - check. Historical figures that every forward schoolboy in England has heard of, thus flattering the viewer they are well informed - check.

Based on the first episode it seems safe to say that Pullman's crown is not in any real danger. When Claudius prophesied that "the man who dwells by the pool will open Graves" it was an entirely forgivable piece of self indulgence. This sort of crude signalling is par for the course in The Tudors, where Thomas Boleyn addresses his daughter as "Anne Boleyn" when we first meet her in case we miss the point, Wolsey and More babble on about "Pan-European Institutions" like they've twigged that the Reformation is going to hit and they are planning to find a berth as interns on Prospect and, in a blatant piece of homage to The Borgias, the French Cardinal reassures Wolsey of the French Cardinals votes as "Pope Alexander" lies dying (Alexander, aka Rodrigo Borgia died several years before Henry's accession. The French Cardinal should be referring to Julius II, Leo X or Adrian VI - probably Leo as there is a reference to a Dauphin which would presumably be Francis, son of Francis I born in 1518 and who died in 1536. This then has to be reconciled with Charles Brandon who by this point was Duke of Suffolk and married to Henry's sister, Mary being single and a commoner - oh what the heck.)

The Tudors have become rather too obvious as a source for historical drama. Henry was done recently by Ray Winstone, so the casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers marks a transition between "Oi, Wolsey shaht it!" to "Top of the morning to ye, Wolsey".

Meanwhile, in other breaking news the new series of Robin Hood is up and running. Robin is less of a wimp than last time - he would kill the Sheriff were it not for the fact that Prince John has promised to raze Nottingham to the ground if he does so. As always invidious comparisons abound. Robin Hood immediately invites comparisons with Robin of Sherwood and suffice it to say the latter remains vastly superior. Nickolas Grace's Sheriff, whatever his other faults, would not have a) called a conspiracy to advance Prince John to the throne 'The Black Knights' and b) would not have told Robin all this as he dangled over a pit of snakes, with the intention of disposing of him later.

It's time to break away from these well trodden paths. How about an series on the 'Trial of the Templars' with Derek Jacobi as de Molay, Richard Armitage as Philip the Fair, Richard Allen as Guillame de Nogaret and Nickolas Grace as Clement VI?

Foreign Secretary's Statement On Iraqi Employees

And a pretty poor deal it is too. According to the press release:

In recognition of that, we have decided to offer those staff, on an ex gratia basis, assistance which goes above and beyond the confines of what is lawfully or contractually required. Assistance will be based on objective criteria, taking into account determinable and relevant factors. It is offered in recognition of the service by these courageous Iraqis in direct support of HMG’s efforts to help the Iraqi Government and people build a peaceful, stable and prosperous Iraq.

The assistance announced by the Prime Minister yesterday will allow Iraqi staff, including but not limited to interpreters, currently working for HMG in Iraq, who have attained 12 months’ or more continuous service, to apply for a one-off package of financial assistance of between 6 and 12 months’ salary, depending on length of service, to meet the costs of relocation for themselves and their dependants in Iraq or the region, if they are made redundant or have to resign from their job because of what we judge to be exceptional circumstances. Alternatively, these staff will be able to apply for exceptional leave to enter the UK, or to avail themselves of the opportunity for resettlement in the UK through the UK’s Gateway refugee resettlement programme, provided that they meet the criteria for the programme, including that they satisfy UNHCR that they meet the criteria of the 1951 Convention and need resettlement.

In addition, interpreters/translators and other Iraqi staff serving in similarly skilled or professional roles necessitating the regular use of written or spoken English, who formerly worked for HMG in Iraq, will be able to apply for assistance for themselves and their dependants provided that they satisfactorily completed a minimum of 12 months’ service, and they were in our employ on or after 1 January 2005. Former staff meeting those criteria will be able to apply for a one-off package of financial assistance similar to that available for serving staff, or to avail themselves of the opportunity for resettlement in the UK through the Gateway programme as set out above.

So there you are. I can just see the jihadists sitting there debating as to whether or not to bump off an interpreter. "Let us smite the infidel dog!" "No, no Neil, he's only been employed by the British Army for five months". Yep, that'll happen.

File under "Bloody Disgrace". More, as always, here and here.

Iraqi Employees Campaign - Don't let the Home Office get away with doing nothing

This is lifted bodily Dan Hardie's blog. I can't improve on it so read, mark and inwardly digest.

Another excuse dies the death: the Americans, or at any rate their Congress, are doing what the British Government lacks the moral courage to do. (Hat tips to these two gentlemen.)

There will be a meeting at Parliament on Tuesday October 9th, to call for the British Government to recognise its responsibilities and give shelter to the Iraqis endangered by their work for this country's troops and diplomats. You can invite your MP. And if you care about these people, you should.

The more MPs we get in the meeting, the better. They are not going to listen to Mark Brockway, who is getting desperate emails from the Iraqis he hired, and walk away indifferent; they are not going to listen to Richard Beeston of the Times and decide that they can ignore this. We are going to make it impossible for the Home Office to carry on with its delaying tactics.

This is how to invite your MP:

1) Find your MP: type your postcode into 'They work for you'.

2) Copy-and-paste or better still, adapt this form invitation below (and make any changes you want, but we have to keep these letters courteous). Also; make sure that your address and postcode are on the letters

3) You can then either email it to your MP (email addresses for MPs take the form surnameinitial@parliament.uk- thus Gordon Brown is BROWNG@parliament.uk ) or you can post it to 'MP's name, The House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA.' If you have the time, printed letters are better than emails: and it's not that hard to write a letter, is it? If you get a bounceback from an MP's email address, get in touch with me ( danhardie.blog@gmail.com ) as I have a bunch of alternative contact details now, or -better still- write the print letter and post it. Please make sure that your address and postcode are clearly written on either emails or print letters, so that the MP realises they are dealing with one of their own constituents.

4) If you are in London on the evening of Tuesday 9th October, please come along to the meeting in person. Go to St Stephen's entrance, facing College Green (the police tend to be helpful here) and ask for admission. There will be at least one campaigning blogger at the entrance, ready to point you in the right direction: remember the meeting starts at 7pm.

Thank you- and, hopefully, see you there.

FORM INVITATION:

Iraqi Employees of British Forces – Parliamentary Speaker Meeting, Tuesday October 9th

Dear NAME

As your constituent, I am writing on behalf of 'We can't turn them away', an online campaign for resettlement for those Iraqis threatened by death squads for their work with British forces. We would like to invite you to a meeting in Committee Room 14 of the Houses of Parliament on Tuesday October 9 ^th from 7 to 9pm .

As you may well have seen in The Times, Iraqi citizens who have worked as interpreters for British forces are being tortured and murdered by death squads for having worked with the occupying forces.

Speakers will include:

Mark Brockway (a former Warrant Officer in the Territorial Royal Engineers, who ran the

British Army's Quick Impact Reconstruction Projects in 2003, when he hired a great many

Iraqi staff in 2003. Mark has been in close contact with them since and knows of at least

one who has been recently murdered;

Richard Beeston, senior Foreign Correspondent for 'The Times' newspaper.

Ed Vaizey MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Lynne Featherstone MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for International Development.

A senior Labour MP.

A number of reporters from television, the national press and BBC Radio will attend the meeting.

This is a cross-party, moral issue, on which both opponents and supporters of the Iraq war can agree. Whilst the Government has said that it is reviewing the policy, no change has yet been made, and further delay is likely to leave Iraqi employees at the mercy of the local death squads. Attendance at this event certainly does not imply any agreement with the aims of our campaign: you are welcome to come and ask searching questions, or to send a Researcher to represent you.

If you cannot come to the meeting, I would also ask that you write to the Home Secretary, and to the Immigration Minister, Liam Byrne, asking for an explanation of why policy has not changed despite the announcement of an 'urgent review' of the matter on August 8th this year.

Thank you very much for your time.

David Irving's Comeback Tour

David Irving is reportedly attempting to rehabilitate himself.

It has been interesting over the years to watch Irving's tergiversations over the holocaust. Irving has been torn between two poles. His desire to be regarded as a credible historian and his view of himself as a future leader of the far right. His position on the holocaust has shifted as to whether which of the two is uppermost at the time.

Irving's first book Hitler's War, published in 1977, maintained that the holocaust had, in fact, happened but that Hitler was entirely ignorant of the fact that it took place. Whether he sincerely believed this at the time is, I imagine, only known by Mr Irving and God. Certainly, according to Ray Hill (former Nazi turned anti-fascist activist) when he met Irving in 1983, Irving told him that only a million Jews had died but that it was impolitic to attempt to establish the fact. 'The time isn't right' he told Hill. (The Other Face of Terror, p245). According to Deborah Lipstadt, in 1988 Irving came out as a fully fledged holocaust denier as a result of Ernest Zundel's trial. He claims to have been convinced by the Leuchter report, a scientifically worthless 'proof' that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Why he moved is an interesting question. According to Hill, when not a fully fledged denier he had established fairly strong links with revisionist circles and one wonders whether keeping his credit in those circles meant standing up for Zundel in his hour of need? Despite being hired by Andrew Neil at the Sunday Times to translate the Goebbels diaries, Irving's reputation continued to slide during the 1990s. His publisher dropped him, his books ceased to be prominent in the history section of high street bookshops. In 1996 Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel for claiming that he was a Holocaust Denier. One suspects that his desire for historical credibility was reasserting itself. The mid-nineties was pretty much a dead end for the far right. Perhaps he thought that Lipstadt would be reluctant to defend a libel suit. As the world knows it was a horrible miscalculation. If Penguin had declined to fight their reputation would have taken a permanent knock and, lets face it, being sued by Irving over claims that he was a holocaust denier was a bit like being sued by Alex Ferguson, upset by the claim that he was a football manager, it was eminently winnable. I imagine that Penguin, confident of victory imagined that it would do Lipstadt's sales no harm. The bookshop near my office had a bank of copies eminently displayed throughout the trial and yes, I bought one. Lipstadt was triumphantly vindicated as the judge ruled what everyone knew that Irving was a racist and a holocaust denier.

Irving recanted his views in November 2005, acknowledging that there were actually gas chambers at Auschwitz. It would be nice to report that he did so having genuinely seen the light but, in fact, at the time he was on trial for holocaust denial in Austria. He has now got a speaking tour lined up and plans to publish a series of books. Apparently the gas chambers have gone again, but 2.4 million Jews were killed on Himmler's orders. (Needless to say Irving doesn't have much sympathy.) This looks to me to be a direct triangulation between the kameraden on the far right and the "say what you like, he knows his stuff" position that kept his reputation artificially inflated for so long. The Grauniad seems to think that he' s sufficiently newsworthy to run an article on - there can't be that many apologists for Nazism who get pre-publicity from the mainstream press. I suppose that he is betting that he is deemed suitably newsworthy for his books to at least be reviewed and doubtless he can depend on some bold contrarian to tell us that he is necessary as some sort of gadfly.

Who knows. Hopefully everyone will realise that his historical opinions are based not on a search for truth but on the needs of the moment and are, therefore, entirely worthless. History will regard Irving a colossal narcissist, for spending his life revising the casualty figures of the Holocaust up and down to suit his own needs. But being a colossal narcissist isn't necessarily a bar to being a public figure. Whilst it would be welcome, a long period of silence from Mr Irving seems unlikely.